The following extracts are from the Oxford or original MS.1 :—

["NATURALL HISTORIE OF WILTSHIRE "—PART II.—MS. IN THE BODLEIAN LIBRARY.]

pany of Italian Architects to travell up and downe over all Europe to build Churches. From those are derived the Fraternity of Adopted-Masons.

Free-Masons. They are known to one another by certayn Signes & Marks and Watch-words: it continues to this day. They have Severall Lodges in severall Counties for their reception: and when any of them fall into decay, the brotherhood is to relieve him &c. The manner of their Adoption is very formall, and with an Oath of Secrecy.

As already observed, Aubrey's memorandum of Wren's approaching initiation was not printed or in any way alluded to until 1844. It can therefore have exercised no influence whatever in shaping or fashioning the belief (amongst Masons) which, from 1738 onwards, has universally prevailed as regards the connection of the great architect with the ancient craft. Indeed, the statements of Aubrey (1691) and Anderson (1738) are mutually destructive. If Wren was only "accepted" or "adopted" in 1691, it is quite clear that he could not have been Grand Master at any earlier date; and, on the other hand, if he presided over the Society in the year 1663, it is equally clear that the ceremony of his formal admission into the fraternity was not postponed until 1691. I shall now proceed to examine the question chronologically, dealing with the evidence in order of time-i.e., time of publication. According to this method of procedure, the entries in the Aubrey MSS. will be considered last of all, at which stage I shall enter upon a review of the whole subject, and conclude with an expression of the views which, in my judgment, are fairly deducible from the evidence before us.

In proceeding with the inquiry, whilst it is constantly necessary to bear in mind that masonic writers of the last century-with whose works, in the first instance, we are chiefly concerned, were altogether uninfluenced by the singular entries in the Aubrey MSS., yet we should be on our guard not to assume too confidently that none of the Fellows of the Royal Society who joined the fraternity between 1717 and 1750 were aware that one of their own number-Aubrey was chosen an F.R.S. in 1663-had recorded in a manuscript work

1 During my visit to the Bodleian Library in 1880, the late Mr W. H. Turner was at the pains of instituting a careful, though fruitless search amongst the papers of Anthony a Wood, in order to ascertain whether Aubrey's Addendum of 1691 had been inspired by any information from his friend.

* The words "after Rogation Sunday," "Accepted," "Patents," "Freemasons," and "Adopted-Masons," here printed in smaller type, are interlineated in the original; the words here printed in italics are there underlined.

(which he deposited in their own library), the approaching initiation into Masonry of a former President of the Royal Society. It is improbable that so curious a circumstance was wholly unknown to Dr Desaguliers, Martin Folkes, Martin Clare, or Richard Rawlinson, all Fellows of the Royal Society, and zealous Freemasons.1 If we admit the probability of some one 2 or more of these distinguished brethren having perused the manuscript in question, it affords negative evidence, from which we may not unfairly conclude that the allusion to Wren failed to make any impression upon them.

In next proceeding to adduce the evidence upon which the belief in Wren's membership of the fraternity has grown up, I shall, in the first instance, cite the Constitutions of 1723, as presenting an authoritative picture of the condition of Freemasonry in that year. It may, however, be premised that the Grand Lodge of England-established in 1717-was then in the sixth year of its existence. Philip, Duke of Wharton, was the Grand Master, and Dr Desaguliers his Deputy.

The earliest "Book of Constitutions" was published by Dr James Anderson, conformably with the direction of the Grand Lodge, to which body it was submitted in print on January 17, 1723, and finally approved. It was the joint production of Anderson, Desaguliers, and the antiquary, George Payne, the two last named of whom had filled the office of Grand Master. Payne compiled the "Regulations," which constitute the chief feature of this work; Desaguliers wrote the preface; and Anderson digested the entire subject-matter.

This official book speaks of "our great Master Mason Inigo Jones;" styles James I. and Charles I. "Masons," and proceeds as follows:

"After the Wars were over, and the Royal Family restor'd, true Masonry was likewise restor❜d; especially upon the unhappy Occasion of the Burning of LONDON, Anno 1666; for then the City Houses were rebuilt more after the Roman stile, when King Charles II. founded the present St PAUL'S Cathedral in London (the old Gothick Fabrick being burnt down), much after the style of St PETER'S at Rome, conducted by the ingenious Architect, Sir CHRISTOPHER WREN.

"Besides the Tradition of old Masons now alive, which may be rely'd on, we have much reason to believe that King Charles II. was an accepted Free-Mason, as everyone allows he was a great Encourager of the Craftsmen.

"But in the Reign of his Brother, King James II., though some Roman Buildings were carried on, the Lodges of Freemasons in London much dwindled into Ignorance, by not being duly frequented and cultivated."

In a footnote Dr Anderson speaks of the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, "as having been designed and conducted also by Sir Christopher Wren, the King's Architect."

William III. is termed "that Glorious Prince, who by most is reckon'd a Free-Mason;" and having cited an opinion of Sir Edward Coke, Dr Anderson says:—

"This quotation confirms the tradition of Old Masons, that this most learned Judge really

belong'd to the Ancient Lodge, and was a faithful Brother."

The text of the original "Book of Constitutions" thus concludes:

1 Dr Desaguliers was Grand Master 1719, and Deputy Grand Master 1722-3 and 1725; Folkes was Deputy Grand Master in 1724, and Clare in 1741; Rawlinson was a Grand Steward in 1734.

2 It is hardly within the limits of possibility that Rawlinson could have appropriated the dedication and preface of this work without perusing the work itself?

"And now the Free-born BRITISH NATIONS, disentangled from foreign and civil Wars, and enjoying the good Fruits of Peace and Liberty, having of late much indulg'd their happy Genius for Masonry of every sort, and reviv'd the drooping Lodges of London. This fair Metropolis flourisheth, as well as other Parts with several worthy particular Lodges, that have quarterly communication, and an annual Grand Assembly wherein the Forms and Usages of the most ancient and worshipful Fraternity are wisely propagated, and the Royal Art duly cultivated, and the cement of the Brotherhood preserv'd: so that the whole Body resembles a well built Arch." 1

It will be seen by the above extracts, that whilst various kings of England, the celebrated architect Inigo Jones, and even a learned judge, are included in the category of Freemasons, Sir Christopher Wren is only mentioned in a professional capacity. From which it may safely be inferred, that the triumvirate charged with the preparation of the first code of laws, and the first items of masonic history, published by authority, had at that time no knowledge of his ever having been a member of the Society. Dr Mackey indeed thinks, that "this passing notice of him who has been called the 'Vitruvius of England,' must be attributed to servility;" but with all due respect to the memory of this diligent lexicographer, I am of opinion-for reasons which will hereafter appear in fuller detail—that the English Freemasons of 1717-23 had no reason to believe in Wren's connection with their Society,2 also, that if at any time during the building of St Paul's Cathedral he had been "accepted" as a Freemason, all recollection of so important a circumstance as the initiation or affiliation of the "King's Architect," would not have totally died out in the subsisting lodges of masons, within the short span of six or seven years, which, according to Anderson (in his subsequent publication of 1738), elapsed between Wren's cessation of active interest in the lodges, and the so-called Revival of 1717. It is important, moreover, to note, that the Constitutions of 1723 record no break in the career of prosperity, upon which the craft had embarked after the accession of William III.

Between 1723 and 1738, though a large number of masonic books and pamphlets were published, in none of these is Wren alluded to as a Freemason. He is not so styled in the Constitutions of 1726, and 1730 (Dublin), which were reprinted by the late Mr Richard Spencer in 1871, nor is his connection with the craft in any way hinted at by Dr Francis Drake, the Junior Warden of the Grand Lodge of York, in his celebrated oration of 1726.

Smith's "Pocket Companion" for 1735, 1736, 1737, and 1738,4 though they contain much masonic information, describe Charles II. as "that mason king," and refer to William III. as "with good reason believed to have been a Free-Mason," merely designate the late surveyor general, "that excellent architect, Sir Christopher Wren."

The newspapers during the same period (1723-38)—with the exceptions to be presently noticed—at least so far as my research has extended, are equally silent upon the point under

1 The Constitution of the Freemasons, 1723, pp. 40, 43, 47, 48.

2 In a former chapter ("The Statutes relating to the Freemasons," ante, vol. i., p. 352), I have drawn attention to the scrupulous care with which the Constitutions of 1723 were compiled.

Even taking Aubrey's prediction as a fact, and further assuming that Sir Christopher never attended another masonic meeting after his reception in 1691, is it credible that so remarkable an occurrence could have been entirely forgotten in 1717?

4 In the 1736 and subsequent editions the title is enlarged to "The Freemason's Pocket Companion. By W. Smith, a Freemason."

consideration, and there is no reference to Wren in the Rawlinson MSS. at the Bodleian Library.

Sir Christopher died on February 25, 1723; and in the Postboy, No. 5243, from February 26 to February 28 of that year, appears an obituary notice of Wren and an advertisement of the "Book of Constitutions." The same paper in the next number (5244) gives a more elaborate notice, consisting of twenty-eight lines, enumerating all the offices held by the deceased. The Postboy, No. 5245, from March 2 to March 5, has the following:"London, March 5, this evening the corpsc of that worthy FREE MASON, Sir Christopher Wren, Knight, is to be interr'd under the Dome of St Paul's Cathedral." A similar announcement appears in the British Journal, No. 25, March 9, viz. :-" Sir Christopher Wren, that worthy Free Mason, was splendidly interr'd in St Paul's Church on Tuesday night last."

I find in my notes sixteen notices in all of Wren's death or burial, occurring between February 26 and March 9, 1723. Four are copied from the Postboy, and a similar number from the Daily Post. Two each from the British Journal, the Weekly Journal or Saturday's Post, and the Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer. Single notices are given in the London Journal and the Postman.

In none of these, except as above stated, is Sir Christopher designated a "Freemason," and this expression is not again coupled with his name, in any newspaper paragraph that I have seen, of earlier date than 1738.

It will be observed that the journal, announcing in the first instance, that Wren was a "Freemason," had been previously selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the "Book of Constitutions,"1 and it is hardly to be wondered at that the editor of the Postboy should have deemed a title so lavishly bestowed by Dr Anderson upon the persons and personages of whom he had occasion to speak, including Inigo Jones, a predecessor of Wren in the office of Surveyor General, would be fitly applied to designate the great man whose funeral obsequies he was announcing.

That a single paper only-the British Journal, No. 25-reprinted the statement given in the Postboy, will surprise the readers of old newspapers, for if there is one circumstance more than another which renders an examination of these records especially fatiguing, it is the wearisome repetition by journals of later date, of nearly every item of intelligence published in a London newspaper.

Passing from this branch of the inquiry, the importance of which I do not rate very highly, I shall next present an extract from a work, published in 1730, that will be again, on its own merits or demerits, considered at a later stage of this history. "The terms," says Samuel Prichard, "of Free and Accepted Masonry (as it now is) has [sic] not been heard of till within these few years; no constituted Lodges or Quarterly Communications were heard of till 1691, when lords and dukes, lawyers and shopkeepers, and other inferior tradesmen, porters not excepted, were admitted into this mystery or no mystery."2 It will be seen that stress is

The Postboy, No. 5243. Commenting upon the passage in the Postboy, No. 5245, Mr W. P. Buchan observes: "Is it true that Wren was really a Freemason' before his death? And, if so, when and where did he become one? At page 595 of the Graphic for 19th December 1874, we are told that the Duke of Edinburgh is a mason, but I fear this is a mistake; consequently, if the latter scribe is not infallible as regards a living celebrity, I feel justified in doubting the veracity of the former respecting a dead one."

here laid on some great Masonic event having occurred in 1691, which is so far corroborative of Aubrey's memorandum. This notion may indeed have suggested itself to Prichard from the fact that, in 1729, the Grand Lodge of England, in its official list of lodges, showed the date of constitution of the senior lodge, formerly the old Lodge of St Paul, as 1691; or, on the other hand, this entry in the engraved list may be viewed as confirmatory of the statement in "Masonry Dissected"?

Elsewhere, I have expressed an opinion that the date of 1691, as given in the official calendar for 1729, may denote that in this year original No. 1,1 formerly the old Lodge of St Paul (now Antiquity), from being an occasional became a stated lodge, and Aubrey's statement respecting Wren's "adoption," I instanced as strengthening this hypothesis. If, indeed, Prichard's observations are entirely put on one side, as being inspired by the calendar of 1729, there yet remains the inquiry-must not this date of 1691, officially accorded to the senior lodge thirty-eight years after its original establishment as computed by the Grand Officers,2 point at least to some remarkable event connected with its history? On the other hand, however, it may be fairly contended that nothing very extraordinary could have taken place in 1691, since all recollection of it had died out before 1723,3 and though slightly anticipating the sequence of my argument, I may here conveniently add, that it would be contrary to all reason and experience for a tradition to hybernate for at least twenty-one years (1717-38) and then suddenly return to full life and reality.

Between 1730 and 1738, the newspapers of the time contain very frequent references to Freemasonry. Many of these were preserved by Dr Rawlinson, and may be seen in the curious collection of Masonic scraps, entitled the "Rawlinson MSS.," in the Bodleian Library. These I have carefully examined, and the passing allusions of the learned collector, to contemporaneous events of a Masonic character, I have in each case verified wherever a date is named, or a journal cited, and the reference is sufficiently plain and distinct to enable me to trace it in the newspaper files at the British Museum. Furthermore, I have searched these files with more or less particularity from the year 1717 down to 1738 and later, and though I have met with numerous dissertations on Freemasonry, squibs, catechisms, and the like, nowhere, prior to 1738 save in the two journals of 1723, already cited, have I found any mention of Wren as a Freemason. That this belief did not exist in 1737 is, I think, plainly evidenced by the "Pocket Companion" for 1738, printed according to invariable usage slightly in advance, and which, like its predecessors and successors, was a summary of all the facts, fancies, and conjectures previously published in reference to Freemasonry. Had

1 The Four Old Lodges, 1879, p. 46.

2 I am far from suggesting that the period of formation of our oldest English lodge (present No. 2) was rightly determined in 1729. The masonic authorities appear to have proceeded on no principle whatever in the dates of constitution they assigned to lodges. Thus, the lodge at "St Rook's Hill," near Chichester, No. 65 in the numeration of 1729-39, was duly chronicled in the official calendars as having been established "in the reign of Julius Cæsar." In the Weekly Journal, or British Gazetteer (No. 264, April 11, 1730), however, is the following: "A few days since, their Graces the Dukes of Richmond and Montagu, accompanied by several gentlemen, who were all Free and Accepted Masons, according to ancient custom, form'd a lodge upon the top of a hill near the Duke of Richmond's seat, at Goodwood in Sussex, and made the Right Hon. the Lord Baltimore a Free and Accepted Mason."

3 The date of publication of the first "Book of Constitutions."

Numerous extracts from the St James Evening Post, ranging from 1732 to 1738, were reprinted by Mr Hughan in the Masonic Magazine, vol. iv., 1876-77, pp. 418, 472, 518, but in none of these is there any allusion to Wren.